Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Asset Inertia?

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
Post a reply

Re: Asset Inertia?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 13:35:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', ' ') We are going to be forced to increase our quality of life......

But in the process of doing so, we will erode and destroy the livelyhood of others who depend upon us for their quality of life now. That is our dilemma.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Asset Inertia?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 13:47:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')That is demonstrably false. We can conserve energy while both population and GDP grow.

I see you never read my Solutions in Isolation thread I linked you to.

Like Ibon notes, only in the micro-sense, not in the macro sense.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate", while not proven, offers at least a plausible explanation of why in recent years improvements in "energy intensity" at the macroeconomic level have stubbornly refused to be translated into reductions in overall energy demand.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')In the economics literature it is … well known that increased efficiency in the use of a resource leads over time to greater use of that resource and not less use of it" (Q 261).[29] This might explain, for instance, why there appears to be no example of a developed society that has succeeded in combining sustained reductions in energy consumption with economic growth. Mr Alan Meier, of the IEA, referred to "several countries that, for brief periods, reduced their electricity consumption or their energy consumption"—often in response to short-term supply crises—but such reductions in demand have never been sustained. This does not mean that sustained reductions in energy consumption are impossible—simply that it is yet to be demonstrated that they are possible.

link

Conservation, on the scale required, would implode an economy and monetary system based upon the future being larger than the present, not smaller.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Asset Inertia?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 13:55:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ') We can have growth in GDP w/o a growth in energy consumption,

Only if you borrow from a future assumed to be larger than the present and use the money to finance speculation where no real goods or services are created. That's what the downturn in your graph shows. Tech stock bubble/housing bubble; both crashed.

Reselling stuff already made does not an economy make.

Nothing grows without an input of energy.

There is no such thing a s free lunch.

You cannot get something for nothing.

It is a law of physics, I don't care how you see it or try to spin it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Asset Inertia?

Unread postby yesplease » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 14:11:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')That is demonstrably false. We can conserve energy while both population and GDP grow.
I see you never read my Solutions in Isolation thread I linked you to. Like Ibon notes, only in the micro-sense, not in the macro sense.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate", while not proven, offers at least a plausible explanation of why in recent years improvements in "energy intensity" at the macroeconomic level have stubbornly refused to be translated into reductions in overall energy demand.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')In the economics literature it is … well known that increased efficiency in the use of a resource leads over time to greater use of that resource and not less use of it" (Q 261).[29] This might explain, for instance, why there appears to be no example of a developed society that has succeeded in combining sustained reductions in energy consumption with economic growth. Mr Alan Meier, of the IEA, referred to "several countries that, for brief periods, reduced their electricity consumption or their energy consumption"—often in response to short-term supply crises—but such reductions in demand have never been sustained. This does not mean that sustained reductions in energy consumption are impossible—simply that it is yet to be demonstrated that they are possible.
It appears you are having the same problem you had understanding the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate/Jevon's Paradox. Energy conservations refers to...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')eduction in the amount of energy consumed in a process or system, or by an organization or society, through economy, elimination of waste, and rational use.Just like a rise in miles driven and fuel consumption in the U.S. did not mean that the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate was observed, a rise in the energy consumption of the world due to increases in population and/or GDP does not mean the world did not conserve energy. Conservation can occur because of gains in efficiency and if it happens it behaves independently of population and/or GDP.

What you just referred to is true, that world energy consumption has not decreased, but it is not what you said even if you do not understand the difference.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')et, we have yet to understand that conservation only works in a powerdown with a declining population.Conservation works/functions regardless of whether or not population growth and/or GDP growth increase energy consumption since by definition conservation only refers to a reduction in the amount of energy used in a process, not a reduction in total energy use. In other words, if the rate of conservation is lower than the rate of growth of GDP/population, world energy consumption will continue to increase. If it is the same, world energy use will stay the same, and if it's greater world energy use will decline. But regardless of what other factors influence world energy consumption, conservation will still work by definition. If it doesn't work then by definition we aren't conserving anything.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'C')onservation, on the scale required, would implode an economy and monetary system based upon the future being larger than the present, not smaller.We have conserved energy before and will almost certainly conserve energy in the future. Whether or not we will reduce energy consumption is different than whether or not conservation will work, so to speak.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Asset Inertia?

Unread postby yesplease » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 14:44:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ') We can have growth in GDP w/o a growth in energy consumption,

Only if you borrow from a future assumed to be larger than the present and use the money to finance speculation where no real goods or services are created.
GDP does not explicitly require lending. GDP only refers to...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ach of the variables C (Consumption), I (Investment), G (Government spending) and X-M (Net Exports) (where GDP = C + I + G + (X-M) as above)
A video game isn't any less real than ~40 gallons of gas are, and consuming both results in about the same amount of GDP, however one results in a lot of energy consumption while the other results in much less. Goods and services do not have to be energy intensive by definition, and neither does GDP. We definitely need some minimum amount of energy consumption for a given amount of GDP, but given how much we waste we can use less energy for the same GDP.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Asset Inertia?

Unread postby aldente » Thu 25 Dec 2008, 18:59:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')I see you never read my Solutions in Isolation thread I linked you to.


Correct,
in a world of spam, print matter as well as spam electronic print, nobody spends the time to read anything anymore.
We are the last generation that communicates in the written word -the new ones communicate through games only..

Image
User avatar
aldente
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Asset Inertia?

Unread postby InToWishin » Fri 26 Dec 2008, 08:43:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('albente', ' ')Definition of "reality". please!

There are limits.

"Reality" is whatever you can get away with.
User avatar
InToWishin
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue 16 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Asset Inertia?

Unread postby aldente » Mon 29 Dec 2008, 17:53:57

Neither your, nor Montes answer are satisfactory (nor do I claim to have the answer).

Monty certainly is correct, as much as he is "off topic" in the larger context", yet "on-track" when it comes to the context on this forum.

"There are limits"

There are certainly no limits when one does cross the boarder, meaning being part of the big majority that will not survive the coming mess. Once we are dead in other words. It seems like " to welcome Death" is the answer to ease the projected pain to come. Monte conlcudes to an existing fact from the perspective of the past into a projected future.

This is correct and true, and we, the majority will not survive what's to come for sure. Neither have our ancestors (on a smaller scale only due to less population mass). The general factor is the same and the fact that death stares us all into face remains unchanged.

Is mortaility the subject matter discussed here after all?

Image
User avatar
aldente
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests